Pages

Sunday, 28 September 2014

Labour has, at least since the early Blair years, been synonymous with vacuous slogans.

"Britain deserves better" wasn't too bad - it was obvious what they were referring to. But what about the excruciating "hardworking Britain better off", "a future fair for all" and the ridiculous "forward not back"?

Their current one is an absolute corker. Delegates at their Manchester conference were confronted with the latest exercise in spectacular vapidity - "together we can".

Which naturally raises more questions than it does answer: together we can what? Destroy the economy? Launch illegal wars? Pretend to have working class friends? Dance with unicorns? It means nothing, and as the adopted slogan leading into a General Election it is so banal as to be rendered meaningless.

Even Barack Obama's "Yes we can!" slogan had the benefit of a background message of hope. Labour, on the other hand, are struggling from something of a self-inflicted identity crisis that this attempt at cultivating fake togetherness highlights rather than remedies.

"Together we can" is so inept I fear for the future career of the advertising exec who thought it was a good idea. It's slightly more sane than the notion of using young labrador bondage in the bathroom as a sales point for Andrex, but unlikely to be anything like as successful (it's a bit difficult to sell Ed Miliband as cute, or Ed Balls as cuddly). The "Labour's plan for Britain's future" might have been more credible if they had produced anything resembling a plan - they're still tying themselves up over how to deal with the Scottish devolution question.

Perhaps Labour needs to realise that politics isn't showbusiness. No-one is terribly impressed with people who claim to be sufficiently equipped to run the country finding new ways to be seen as out of touch, or just plain stupid.

Labour aren't able to express their ideas convincingly - some might cruelly suggest that is because they have none - but I would argue this is a product of the style over substance school of Blair, Mandelson et al. It is not that they lack ideas as such, but have forgotten how to communicate them in a way that is believable and authentic. Perhaps the empty slogans also demonstrate a party that is perhaps not ideologically vacuous, but one that is deeply uncomfortable with itself to the point it is scared of what it might say.

Labour's current problems are legion and well-documented. However, democracy demands a strong opposition and I can take no joy from their current predicament: the principal beneficiaries of ineffective Labour messages are likely to be UKIP and the Conservatives.

Perhaps this is not only Labour's problem, but one for all professionalised policitians. A lack of authenticity is obvious, compounded by the fear of speaking one's mind. And so refuge is found in glib, meaningless and uncreative slogans that are hoped will resonate with a public blindly assumed to find such soundbites appealing.

Labour not only needs to find its voice, but its soul. It needs to be more original, more genuine and speak with conviction. It has to realise quickly that vapid slogans are no substitute for a well-communicated message.

Saturday, 27 September 2014

It’s now over a week since Scotland voted No – a verdict which
raises far more questions about Scotland’s future than it answers.

I’ve been trying to make sense of the confusing web of
information and misinformation that has been communicated within the media and
by the representatives of political parties. What is apparent is that there is
no broad consensus among the Westminster parties, no acceptance of the “devo
max” being proclaimed as an inevitability by many sections of the media, no
long-term view and no real idea of how to deal with the “English question”. In
fact, the latter hasn’t even been adequately defined other than in the cynical
language of David Cameron.

Lessons from the referendum

Before I consider the question of how to move forward
from the referendum – both the result and the two-year long debate – it’s vital
to consider what we’ve learned from that campaign. Firstly, Scotland is more
divided than many imagined, and such divisions cannot simply be wished away.
The nature of Scotland’s politics was shown to be fractious, tribalistic and at
times surprisingly intolerant. Secondly, the result was closer than many
expected; indeed, only a few months ago the No campaign would have considered a
55-45 victory as a defeat rather than something to be greeted with either
relief or celebration. This can hardly be accepted as an approval of the status
quo and suggests that there is an appetite not only for change, but a desire
that such change be far-reaching and radical. Thirdly, the real winner was
democracy – with a huge 85% turnout and hundreds of thousands of activists
energised and inspired by their involvement in such a significant national
conversation.Fourthly, the intervention
of Gordon Brown and his promise of a timetable for change certainly ensured
that the result was not closer and may even have prevented a Yes vote. Brown
may well have saved the Union, but Scottish voters will not respond positively
to any attempt to backtrack on that promise – something the Labour Party must bear
in mind. Fifthly, a common theme in the national conversation on Scotland’s
future was the lack of trust in politicians and the political establishments.

Labour's predicament

There can be no escaping the reality that the pledge for
further powers was made in some panic, which explains the chaotic and
ill-conceived nature of what has followed. Most significantly, Brown and
Darling’s keenness to avoid a Yes vote at apparently any cost allowed them to
be outmanoeuvred by Cameron, who has cynically calculated an opportunity to
play the English card with success. It could easily be Labour’s undoing: they,
unlike the Tories, have everything to lose by selling Scotland short. Labour
has somehow managed to find themselves on the losing side: in spite of being
the foremost voice within Better Together, they now find themselves between the
proverbial rock and hard place. Do they dishonour a pledge they made without
consideration of its ramifications, or do they accept the possibility of being
in office but unable to govern? Business as usual is not an option, but neither
is putting the genie back into the bottle. The conversation now needs to be
had. A powerful and persuasive Yes campaign in Scotland has done what no amount
of Liberal Democrat constitutional navel-gazing has ever accomplished – it’s
had Westminster frightened. And it’s put both the D-word (devolution) and the
all important F-word (federalism) onto the political agenda.

The situation provides opportunities, but it is difficult
to see how Scottish Labour is in any kind of position to respond positively.
Paralysed by self-interest, they are unable to deliver on the public
expectation to facilitate change without compromising their electoral
ambitions. And yet the electoral possibilities are nil if they fail to.
Labour’s predicament is entirely of their own making: Better Together was
always an uneasy alliance but Labour have been strategically weak, easily
outfoxed by the Prime Minister at crucial moments and unable to dictate the
political discourse.

Conservative cynicism

My criticism of Labour does not indicate any kind of
support for the Conservatives’ position, articulated by Cameron and his Justice
Secretary Chris Grayling. The Tories have been nakedly partisan, pouncing on
the West Lothian Question they have virtually ignored for decades to force
Labour into a corner. No doubt, the spectre of UKIP also features in the
thinking that produces arguments such as the potential for “an English
backlash” if Scottish MPs can force “socialist policies” on the rest of the UK.
Not only is this kind of language from Grayling intemperate, it smashes the
illusion of a united front into the water. Given the Tories have been at pains
to undermine the evils of SNP nationalism, it is disappointing that immediately
after the referendum result many senior Conservatives have retreated into the
familiar haven of English nationalism. One down-side to their virtual
disappearance in Scotland (at least in relation to Westminster representation)
is that they have nothing to lose by doing so.

Given the standoff between Labour and the Conservatives,
and with Gordon Brown stating that his timetable will be adhered to
irrespective of any Commons vote, it is little wonder that the SNP have been
able to capitalise on the uncertainty, attracting several thousand new members and
overtaking the Liberal Democrats in terms of membership. For Alex Salmond to
claim that Scottish voters have been “tricked” is premature – only time will
tell – but Paddy Ashown, speaking with Dermot Murnaghan, was correct when he
deemed that "there is
something very close to a national citizens revolt against Westminster – it may
be that the Scottish revolt, near revolution, may go away but I rather doubt it
listening to Mr Salmond earlier on and his, in my view, entirely justifiable
anger.” There is unquestionably a genuine anger, which must be recognised and
responded to. Failure to do so will only serve the interests of the Scottish
National Party.

SNP opportunity

The SNP has its
own issues currently, following the resignation of Alex Salmond as leader and
First Minister. But it is being strengthened by the doubts surrounding the may
forward, suggestions of backtracking and unwillingness to deliver on the part
of Labour and the Conservatives, the uneasy peace between the pro-Union parties
and the strong appetite for change. What is clear is that the SNP must be part
of the “solution”. They must be engaged with, their input obtained. The fact
that 1.6 million people voted in support of independence not only demonstrates
the effectiveness of the Yes campaign, but of the influence the SNP wields.
Nicola Sturgeon has already intimated her willingness to work collaboratively to
ensure further devolution for Scotland. Not only is this necessary for any
effective settlement, it is also wise from a strategic perspective with scope
for exploiting divisions between and within the pro-Union parties. No doubt the
SNP’s opponents will be wary of this, but any lasting settlement for Scotland
must necessarily involve them.

The Liberal Democrats

There are
opportunities for the SNP, but there are also opportunities for the Liberal
Democrats. Gordon Brown was quite incorrect to consider his proposals as
resembling either “Home Rule” or “federalism”, but what he has succeeded in
doing as getting those Lib Dem concepts back on the political agenda.

The Liberal Democrats
yesterday appointed Michael Moore and Tavish Scott to the devolution
commission. Moore has already demonstrated his innate reasonableness and
ability to work with all parties, including the SNP and would appear to be an
ideal representative in the forthcoming discussions; Scott, on the other hand,
is a more unusual choice. He is naturally more combative and is notably
antipathetic towards the SNP. Such aversion is unlikely to aid constructive
dialogue. However, he has been a consistent advocate of decentralisation and of
federalism within Scotland. If Moore and Scott form an unlikely double act, it
is not necessarily an unworkable one. Both are strongly supportive of both
devolution and federalism, both need little reminder of the appetite for significant
reform and neither are likely to be distracted from their purpose by either the
Tories’ cynical attempts at playing the English card or Labour’s descent into
self-destruction.

Indeed, the
opportunities for the Liberal Democrats go beyond merely championing their case
for federalism. As Michael Moore stated while the counting was still underway
last week, there is a need for healing in Scottish politics. Indeed there is,
and it is clearly something that the Conservative and Labour parties are
ill-equipped to deliver. There is the potential for the party to help
facilitate a conversation that will calm tensions, heal wounds and confront the
divisive rationale behind what was often a fraught and ill-tempered battle. It
can only be done in collaboration with the SNP, but there is a chance for the
Lib Dems to bring Scottish politics forward in the aftermath of the vote,
championing again a pluralistic society, challenging division and seeking the
kinds of changes Scottish voters want to see.

The case for federalism

What the Liberal
Democrats cannot do is assume that the case for federalism is so strong that it
makes itself. Neither can they take their former better together partners on
trust. It is time to promote the cause of federalism as never before, as the
window of opportunity is both narrow and temporary. However, former allegiances
and rivalries must be cast aside – the most likely ally in the pursuit of
federalism is neither the indecisive Labour Party nor the self-preservationist
Conservatives, but the Scottish National Party.

While the
long-overdue “English question” has now also been given consideration,
increasing the potential for something resembling a federalist settlement, the
debate cannot be allowed to be framed by the Tories’ demands. As Nick Clegg has
argued, “the vested interests in the two old parties can conspire to block
reform...we cannot allow an exciting new chapter of empowerment and constitutional
renewal to be held hostage yet again by a Labour and Tory pre-election standoff...the issue
of English votes they could jeopardise the Union they purport to defend. Surely
we haven't fought to save our Union in a vote north of the border, only to see
it balkanised in Westminster?Unless they're careful, the Conservatives may end
up turning their back on Scotland, while Labour ignores England: a recipe for
stalemate when we should we working across political divides to renew our
creaking constitution from top to toe."

The question of legacy

And so, what
will the legacy of the Scottish referendum be? The usual protagonists seeking
to gain party-political advantage and the inevitable disappointment of a fudged
compromise, offering little more than tinkering around the edges? Or will we
actually have, if not federalism, at least something approaching the type of
progressive change the referendum result demands?

Part of the
difficulty is Brown’s ridiculous timetable, which was always optimistic and
designed to fit Westminster priorities rather than address the substantive
issues. Lasting change cannot and will not be delivered by the self-interested
conforming to the demands of self-set timescales. Neither can it come from
pledges made in the heat of a referendum debate, without having consulted
either parliament or cabinet. In fact, I’m probably one of the few Scots who
does not wish to hold the three party leaders to their pledge – I’d prefer them
to rip it up and start again, offering us something better and more meaningful.

The way forward

It is absolutely vital to overturn the Tories' flawed logic and separate the issue of further Scottish devolution from the wider matters of federalism and UK constitutional reform. The timetable announced by Brown, however hurried, must address only the immediate matter of extending Scottish devolution. It has been utterly shameful of the Conservatives to link the promise of further powers for Scotland to the issue of English democratic reform. The promise to deliver for Scotland should not depend on reaching agreement for "English votes for English laws". That is not to diminish the need for a conversation on English matters, but that should be distinct from that we are having on devolving more power to Holyrood.

After a final recommendation from the devolution committee has made made and agreed, then must we turn our attention to "the English question" - or, rather, the question of UK devolution. Of course, as a
Liberal Democrat I’m going to passionately defend and promote the federalist
cause. That is not the most obvious outcome, admittedly. But the process is, in
many ways, of equal if not greater importance. Rushing into major reform of English government without either a constitution or popular participation is as foolish as rushing headstrong into independence – what is required
is a period of reflective and engaging public consultation. The result of the
referendum has been interpreted in many ways, but to suggest it is a mandate
for party-appointed politicians to determine our future behind closed doors is
absurd. Not only is it non-democratic, it fails to take into account the
lessons from the referendum I mentioned previously. What is needed is for
people from across the political spectrum, from civic society, voluntary
organisations and charities to come together to facilitate a real debate on
Britain’s future in which all those with an interest can participate and endorse. Such far-reaching change cannot come from a political elite.

There is a need
for real democracy to be seen to be active. Will the devolution commission have
the courage to appoint a UK Constitutional Convention? If they do, it could stimulate
a debate similar to that we have witnessed in Scotland recently, but without
the antagonism...a conversation that can inspire in a way that no election
campaign ever has. It would also constitute the best opportunity yet for real
federalism.

I doubt this
will happen, however, owing to the fears of Labour and the Conservatives. But
it is something that Liberal Democrats (and possibly the Greens and SNP) should promote.The alternative is a controversial and
underwhelming settlement, framed by the interests of the Labour and Conservative
parties. The mechanism is vital not only to get the result we want, but to have
the democratic conversation that Scotland – and the UK – so urgently needs.

Certainly the immediate priority is to work with all parties (and the SNP in particular) to secure the best possible deal for Scotland, while allowing for something more dynamic to consider the complex issue of how the governance of the UK is to be reformed thereafter.

Putting the referendum lessons to good use

Coming back to my initial points regarding the referendum
lessons, how do we heal Scotland’s divisions? How do we deliver radical change?
How do we ensure that democracy wins out? How do we avoid any political
backtracking? And how do we deal with the lack of trust in politicians?

The answer for me is obvious. It’s a constitutional
convention, with a considered and respectful public conversation. It represents
the best chance for real change and the best chance for the Liberal Democrats.

The devolution commission is the product of a panicked
pledge and an unwillingness to engage with the issue prior to the referendum.
We must now work with it, but we now owe it to the country to do things better. There are huge opportunities
for the Liberal Democrats to be the main winners from the referendum, but if we
fail to deliver anything other than a few “further powers” not only will we
have missed the best opportunity in over a century to bring Home Rule to
Scotland, we will have surrendered entirely our credibility. It's time to tear up the familiar script and start again.

The road ahead is fraught with risks – but they’re risks
that must be taken if federalism is to become reality. The question is: do we
have the courage to take them?

The Labour MP for Inverclyde, Iain McKenzie, has - according to reports on the ITV and BBC websites - been relieved of his duties as parliamentary aide to shadow defence secretary Vernon Coaker.

The justification for his removal from his former post appears to be his decision to vote against military intervention in Iraq.

Mr McKenzie so far has maintained a silence on the matter, but what is clear is that he is no natural "rebel" and that he voted according to his conscience.

The decision to sack him says more about the Labour Party and its requirement for rigid and unquestioning obedience than it does about Mr McKenzie. I expressed some of my own thoughts on the potential intervention two days ago, but while I would have voted the same way as my MP I am more than aware this is a complicated matter and I would not expect MPs to leave their consciences, principles or their individuality behind when they entered the voting lobby.

No doubt Labour will argue that war votes are not an issue of conscience for ministers or their aides. This is an absurd logic: what could be more of an issue of conscience than a decision with the potential to cost thousands of lives?

I am sorry that Mr McKenzie has been treated in this way, but I am pleased he found himself able to vote in the way he believed was right while probably being aware of what the consequences would be. He has earned my respect, and hopefully also that of many other constituents.

On the other hand, the Labour Party I was once a member of deserves nothing other than disdain. It is a party in which individuality is dangerous and morality must conform to the dictates of a rigid orthodoxy.

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

While not being too pleased with an e-mail I received today from the Scottish Liberal Democrats, promoting something purporting to be an engagement with members on the referendum campaign, a further communique from Nick Clegg arrived this evening that was more troubling.

On the subject of ISIL, the leader sent out the following e-mail to the party membership:

Dear Andrew,

On Friday Parliament is to be recalled to debate Britain joining
the coalition of nations who have launched air strikes against the
ISIL terrorist organisation in Iraq.

Liberal Democrat MPs will be supporting Britain joining this
coalition for three reasons. Firstly, the threat from ISIL to Britain
has already been made clear by the sickening sight of British hostages
being executed on television. Secondly, unlike the 2003 war in Iraq
this intervention is legal - we are responding to a direct request for
help from the legitimate Government of Iraq and Parliament will vote
before any action is taken. Thirdly, we’re acting as part of a broad
coalition of countries, including many Arab countries, to deal with a
real and immediate threat.

I know that given our party’s history this will evoke strong
feelings. Earlier, I recorded an interview for broadcasters in which I
explained why we were supporting this action. You will see some of
this on the news this evening but I wanted party members to see the
interview in full.

This is obviously a developing situation and I will be in touch
with you again over the coming days.

Thank you,

Nick Clegg

Leader of the Liberal Democrats

The problem with Nick's position - as with that of the Blair government in 2003 - is that it shows a grotesque misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq. It fails to consider ISIL's possible motivations for committing these sickening murders, and may in fact be providing the very response ISIL are seeking. It also fails to recognise the tribal nature of Iraq, the current political situation and the reality of dangerous power struggles emerging between rival factions. The rise of ISIL has as much to do with these power games, and of undermining the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi; it also is a product of the West's inability to deliver anything resembling a peaceful or democratic Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion.

Furthermore, it takes the misguided perspective that an enemy of my enemy must be my friend. This is no basis for international military action in the 21st century.

As for the notion that this conflict is legal - I have two points to raise. The first is that Clegg is seeming to suggest that the Liberal Democrats would have supported the 2003 invasion if it had been "legal". (I wouldn't have - there were several reasons why the action was flawed and reckless.) Secondly, the fact that something is legal does not make it desirable. Thirdly, the existence of a "coalition of countries" does not mean that alternative means of resolving the issue should be overlooked.

It is not that I would rule out any kind of military intervention. There are times when action is necessary, and when a failure to act constitutes a dereliction of duty. But ISIL is not a dictatorial regime; it is not even HAMAS. What
Clegg and others do not address is that ISIL is not simply a
military operation. It is a political movement, with its roots in key
elements of Iraqi society, that is far more interested in prompting
Turkey into responses as it is in goading the West. It craves recognition and has been brazenly seeking the kind of retaliation that will lend substance to its propaganda. It is not, as Clegg is suggesting, a threat to the UK - the brutal killings of UK citizens are not aimed at threatening the UK, but provoking it. It certainly makes so sense to me to commit to military intervention in
Iraq on the basis of gruesome murders of British citizens in Syria.

The question of how is as crucial as the issue of why. Attention should also be given to the potential ramifications of any action, including how to build a less divided Iraq in the aftermath.

A "coalition" is no substitute for a United Nations Resolution. There are appropriate international bodies that cannot continue to be shown disdain. "Coalitions" of Arab countries with vested interests - and human rights records ISIL would be proud of - should not be sided with uncritically. I am not suggesting doing nothing, but action must be based on an understanding of political and military reality that seems somewhat lacking in Clegg's e-mail. Action must be considered, proportionate and planned with potential consequences in mind.

As it stands, we are risking everything on removing ISIL while adopting a strategy that might actually strengthen their hand. Will intervention be to the benefit of the area's long-term future? Is the strategy realistic? How will it improve the West's standing in the area? How will it work to undo the damage of previous Western interventions? None of these question shave been addressed.

I'm uneasy about intervention but not necessarily opposed. I remain to be convinced. E-mails such as this - providing little detail, demonstrating limited understanding of the many issues at the heart of ISIL's emergence and depending upon perceived threats to the UK for its argument - anger me because they seek to justify a position without giving any adequate answers to the multitude of questions people like myself have.

On the positive side, at least Clegg does invite responses. He's showing a willingness to engage with members, and that is appreciated. However, if you're going to make a case for military action, it has to be a bit more sophisticated than "they're bad" and "they represent a threat to the UK".

I've had a couple of e-mail from the party today that have made me rather irate.

The first is from the Scottish Lib Dems, who have invited me to "a Members’ Forum ... at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Glasgow. This
special event will be open to all members and gives everybody the
opportunity to have their say on the referendum campaign, its outcome
and the future. Similar events held after elections in the past have had
big attendances and have
had a real impact on the direction of the party. The
Forum will be chaired by Scottish party leader Willie Rennie and will
include contributions from Sir Menzies Campbell, Michael Moore and
Alistair Carmichael, who will be able to update members on events at a
UK level."

The price for this? £20 (a modest £10 for concessions).

In response, if the party is genuinely seeking feedback on the referendum, the campaigns and their ramifications - and if it is being honest in its aim to attract a "big attendance" - the notion of requesting members to pay for the privilege of expressing a view is perhaps self-defeating.

I'd also suggest it is a trifle insulting to the many who have campaigned tirelessly and passionately for over two years. The party needs to conduct an open and democratic conversation, one that is involving and engaging, rather than what is essentially a closed-door fringe event with knobs on. Those people need to be heard, their views, observations and hopes should be taken into consideration - but this is hardly the forum in which open and meaningful dialogue can take place.

No doubt Menzies Campbell, Michael Moore and Alistair Carmichael will be worth listening to, but as an exercise in engagement this is sadly lacking. It is little wonder that the SNP membership has overtaken ours this week - they offer the many activists who have been involved with Yes Scotland, many of whom have been inspired and energised by the previous two years, a new outlet for their political expression, inviting them to share in a new conversation to move Scotland forward; we, on the other hand, hold ticketed member-only events with party grandees.

I won't be going. It's not just the question of the £20 admission charge I struggle with, but the very thinking at the heart of it.

Some have asked me why I take to blogging and social media to make my political points. I think I'll let this e-mail answer that question for me...

Sunday, 21 September 2014

After being unsuccessful in his struggle to secure Scottish independence, First Minister Alex Salmond has opted to resign as First Minister.

He did not need to do so, but his reasons for resigning are perfectly understandable. He has taken the SNP, and its cause of Scottish nationalism, as far as he can. It is perfectly logical, at a time when the SNP is naturally considering its next steps, to make way for a new leader - with possibly a new way of thinking. Why continue to serve until the next election in 2016, when instead the new leader can be given a chance to bring their own style and vision to the top office in advance of that election?

That said, I am sorry to have seen him resign.

It is not that I like Alex Salmond particularly, although there are many politicians I like less. I find it difficult to tolerate his bombastic approach, his apparent egocentricity, and his obvious arrogance. But, on the other hand, he's somewhat easier to respect. He has been the first Scottish First Minister to be an improvement on his predecessor. There can be no questioning his adherence to his beliefs; neither can he be said to be uninterested in people. He also has charisma, a certain charm, determination, an ability to cultivate popular appeal beyond his party and - what all good politicians require - a sense of humour.

More importantly than all that, he's done more than any other to make Scottish independence a reality. He's also brought credibility to a party for so long on the fringes of Scottish politics. Since taking over the leadership in 1990, Salmond has facilitated the evolution of the SNP from a divided party of four MPs to the prominent force in Scottish politics. Under his leadership, his party smashed an electoral system cynically designed purposely to avoid an SNP majority, and hence the prospect of a referendum. And the outcome of that referendum was that over 1.6 million Scots - or 45% - believed that Scotland should be an independent country.

Far from having failed, this result should be read within the historical context of support for independence being consistently around the 30% mark. For all the limitations of Yes Scotland's strategy, the campaign was able to engage with people and reach out in a way that Better Together could not. Salmond, while not liked by all, was undoubtedly an asset and the way he performed in the second televised debate with Alistair Darling showed his best and his worst: his enormous strengths as a talented communicator were as apparent as his regrettable tendency to seek to diminish his opponents. There can be no denying that Alex Salmond has been an effective leader of the SNP and, in many respects, also an effective First Minister. Without the late intervention from Gordon Brown, and panicked promised of further powers from Westminster, we might also now be considering how he managed to persuade the Scottish voters to back his vision for independence. We are not, of course - but we cannot lose sight of how close this has been.

There have been others who have used Salmond's resignation as an opportunity for political one-upmanship. Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie, in a statement that was unnecessarily graceless, stated that "he has exhausted his political purpose." I do not accept this either in fact or in sentiment, although obviously purpose inevitably adapts to changing circumstances. Alex Salmond remains as committed to independence as he ever has been and will surely continue to find a platform for promoting the nationalist dream.

Many will remember Alex Salmond as a man of intense principle and character, while others will see him as a deluded egomaniac interested only in securing his place in history. They are both wrong, of course: he was a genuine believer in the cause of independence and was more pragmatic than some would have us believe.

I will remember him as I believe he deserves to be: as the man who nearly delivered Scottish independence. I'm sure that's not how he'd necessarily have wanted history to remember him, but it's fair and taken into account his enormous achievement in transforming the SNP into a modern political party with a terrifyingly efficient campaigning unit. If the cause of Scottish independence is ever fulfilled, it will inevitably be due to some degree to the achievements of the outgoing First Minister. If his successor is able to achieve even a fraction of what Alex Salmond has, they will have done extraordinarily well.

I wish him well in his political career, which will surely not be coming to an end in the foreseeable future, and hope that he can continue to make the colourful contributions to Scottish politics that have so far characterised his 27 years as a parliamentarian.

Thursday, 18 September 2014

Well, those of us in Scotland at least (and I know a few highly interested English-based observers, too).

It’s referendum day.

Or, as I prefer to call it, democracy day.

It’s a day to decide Scotland’s future.

Of
course it won’t all be decided by how we vote. But in voting Yes or No,
Scotland will give its politicians a mandate to shape a new future.

Personally,
I’m taking a long-term view, and voting in the way I think is in the
best interests of Scotland’s future. I want my daughter, in 20 years
time, be living in the kind of Scotland I wished I’d been able to live
in when I was 22.

That does not mean that the choice is easy - far from it.

Yes, in some
respects the only certainty is more uncertainty. We don’t know all the
detail of what a Yes vote will mean. We don’t even know what a No vote
will deliver.

But the respective
campaigns have had two and a half years to get their messages across.
Now it’s our turn to make our voices count.

There
has been a lot about the independence debate that has been regrettable.
It has not always been the dignified and constructive dialogue it could
have been. It has sometimes been characterised by negativity, fear,
diminishing our opponents, petty tribalism, intolerance of others and
disrespectful sniping. It hasn’t always showcased what is good about
Scottish politics.

But......why focus on the negative?

Thousands of people have become politically active for the first time.

Scotland has a buzz of expectation about it.

People are excited, if also apprehensive.

The vast majority of activists on both sides, in spite of what some would like to suggest, have been decent, tolerant, respectful and thoughtful. They have shown they care passionately about our country. Scotland should take great pride in them.

But, most significantly, this is an opportunity.

An enormous opportunity.

An opportunity that I’ve always felt we should have had several years ago.

An opportunity to be part of the most significant date in Scottish history in 307 years.

An opportunity to make our vote count.And, believe me, it will count. This is not a General Election in which the majority of seats are pre-determined by accident of demographics. This is a referendum -and one the polls are telling us is too close to call.

I have never in the last two and a half years ever attempted to persuade anyone to vote one way or another. But I have encouraged people to vote. And I continue to do so.Whatever your views, please vote today. And when we vote, I hope that we all take pride in that vote, knowing that we’re making history. That we’ve made an important decision for ourselves, for our families, for our communities...for Scotland. Maybe even for the UK, or for Europe (depending on your philosophy!)

We’ve all heard a lot of nonsense in the last couple of years – and not all of it from politicians and campaigners. But we need to focus on the important issue. It’s vital to ensure that the main thing is the main thing. It’s a question not of whether Scotland can be an independent country, but whether it should.

It’s a question of determining the political, social and economic nature of the country we live in.

How should you vote? I'm not going to tell you – I don’t flatter myself that anyone would listen anyway! And, of course, while the question is a simple one, there is no easy answer.

But do something great today.

Cast your ballot. Make a difference. Shape history.

And then, whatever the result, let’s work together to make the best Scotland possible.

Tuesday, 16 September 2014

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg,
along with Prime Minister David Cameron and Labour counterpart Ed
Miliband, has signed a pledge to devolve more powers to Holyrood in the
event of a “No” vote.

The pledge,
which promises "extensive new powers" for Scotland’s Parliament
"delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed”, has been
described by Better Together as “a vision around which Scotland can
unite”. The leaders also affirm that "the UK exists to ensure
opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably" and
ensures that the Barnett formula will continue to be used to allocate
resources.

If it is a vision
around which Scotland can unite, then Scottish people must be lacking in
aspiration. Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell
promised yesterday that “federalism is an arm’s length away”. What this
announcement proves is that either Sir Campbell is over-optimistic or
that he has incredibly long arms. What this pledge amounts to is a
belated announcement of commitment to Scottish devolution, but it lacks
both credibility and ambition.

Better
Together has failed to spell out in over two years what its plans were
for “further powers”. It has given only the most vague of commitments
until this point. It was always something to be put on the backburner,
to be talked about only after the independence question had been
settled. Consequently, we have been asked to vote no on the basis of
nothing more than general promises of reform without any detailed
proposals having been put forward. While Better Together have asked
Scottish voters to “think hard about what independence will mean for
Scotland”, they have omitted to provide any indication of what further
devolution will mean in practice.

Until now. And, quite frankly, it’s not enough.

Some
questions have to be answered – most obviously why has it taken until
now, two days before the vote, to provide anything resembling a plan?
But questions should also be asked about the process that is being
committed to: do we want a rushed timetable, a closed-door conversation
on our political future that excludes Scottish society, a
politician-dominated elite making views on our future and telling us
it’s what we want? Or would we prefer an open and engaging conversation,
in which public and civic society can play a role, and which can be
conducted without acrimony and without the influence of vested
interests?

People who have been
enthusiastically campaigning for the last two and a half years – often
people completely new to politics – deserve better than patronising, and
belated, pledges.

What is called
for in the aftermath of the referendum result is some sober reflection
on how Scottish political society can work constructively to build a
progressive Scotland. Rushing headlong into devolution would surely be
as irresponsible as rushing, unthinkingly, into independence.

The
problem with the pledge is threefold. Firstly, it does not commit to
any dialogue with Scottish voters. It is, in effect, disempowering. Not
only will Scottish people not have a democratic say in the outcome of
the timetabled negotiations, they will also be unable to inform the
thinking behind the proposals. Secondly, the detail revealed so far is
spectacularly underwhelming, meaning that those of us hoping for
something resembling Menzies Campbell’s Home Rule recommendations are
likely to be disappointed. It doesn’t really guarantee very much.
Thirdly, the signatories lack any credibility in Scotland.

David
Cameron and Ed Miliband’s approval ratings in Scotland are notably
poor, their political parties being at best viewed with some suspicion.
Nick Clegg’s personal “brand” is viewed with such disdain that it is
surprising that he didn’t consider the wisdom of signing pledges in the
run-up to a public vote.

Only
Better Together could imagine that a pledge signed by Nick Clegg could
possibly provide any reassurance to the public. Only Better Together
could imagine that the Scottish public trust Clegg, Miliband and
Cameron. And only Better Together could imagine that this would be seen
as anything other than a desperate tactic.

Do
I believe Nick Clegg is committed to devolution? Yes, but he’s never
given any commitment to anything approaching federalism. In fairness,
however, there can be no denying that the Liberal Democrats are committed to overdue reform - but can the same really be said of the Conservative and Labour parties? Their commitment, such as it is, is borne from political expediency rather than any ideological principle.

What the pledge does not do is state why it should be trusted. The signatories themselves do not lend the pledge much trustworthiness. Furthermore, there can be no escaping that Better Together would have preferred not to have made any kind of promise now and are only doing so on the back of polls suggesting an at one time unthinkably close outcome. If the No campaign had spent the previous two years openly discussing what further devolution might look like, rather than merely suggesting some form of it as a probability, I might well be able to get behind the "vision".

What would be a vision is the establishment of a new UK Constitutional Convention. If I was being offered something of that nature, even now I would be tempted to vote No. But nothing so far-reaching is seriously being considered. Vote No and our parliament will get a few more powers - if that's what excites you then go for it, but I'd like something a bit more substantive and far-reaching.

As it is, it is not so much a vision as an excuse. It is a reaction rather than a statement. It is disappointing to see committed Liberal Democrats taken in by this, hailing the imminent advent of "federalism" as if it was now a certainty when in truth it is as far away as ever. If the pledge is intended to convince wavering voters of the opportunities of a "no" vote, it is unlikely to succeed in its purpose - if you want people to believe a promise, it's important to ensure it's the right people doing the promising.

Tuesday, 9 September 2014

Today the
Better Together parties have – finally – made an official announcement backing
more powers for Holyrood.

Johann
Lamont, Ruth Davidson and Willie Rennie made a statement this morning
confirming their commitment to unspecified further powers and backing former
Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s timetable for a process to facilitate change in
the event of a “No” vote.

Ms Lamont
stated that “the importance of this debate to the people of Scotland is to give
them certainty that there will be more powers.” This was echoed by Ms Davidson,
who reiterated that “this is the way that Scotland can have what it wants most
of all, which is full control and full levers of power over huge swathes of
what we do in this country.” There is naturally little to disagree with, but it
is difficult to be reassured by such generalised blandishments – especially when
they are delivered belatedly and so obviously in response to unfavourable
polls.

The Lib Dems’
Willie Rennie, who - for all his claims to the contrary is not a fellow
traveller in the Labour-Tory axis of devolutionary tinkering – clearly longs
for something more far-reaching. "All
three parties are coming together as this is so important” he said, without the
slightest hint of irony following Ed Miliband’s ill-timed intervention last
week. "We are going to commit to delivering on more taxation and more
welfare, that's the commitment that we are standing here to give - certainty to
people in Scotland that they know, if they vote 'No' in September, it will lead
to more radical change right across Scotland."

It is difficult not to feel some
empathy for Rennie, who clearly aspires to being able to facilitate major
constitutional changes. But how “radical” can we expect any changes to be? What
specific powers can we expect the pro-Union parties to agree to delegate? Much
as Johann Lamont is correct, to a point, in believing that Scottish people
desire “certainty” and “more powers”, the truth is more complex. Scots aren’t
going to be satisfied with “more powers” if they simply result in minor
modifications to the current settlement. Rennie is correct in asserting that
Scots actually want something more “radical” – the big question, however, is
whether they can deliver it. An almost equally important question for voters is
whether Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats can be trusted to
deliver it.

The Liberal Democrats have long
favoured a federalist structure for the UK, and should not be satisfied with
facilitating merely a different kind of devolution. The Home Rule Commission
produced a praiseworthy vision in 2012, providing for increasing the Scottish
Parliament’s control over financial powers (including inheritance tax, corporation
tax, capital gains tax, and income tax). Significantly, it also considered
introducing “partnership powers” to require greater collaboration between
Holyrood and Westminster, devolution of new borrowing powers, an overdue
replacement to the Barnett Formula and a revised role for the Supreme Court in
arbitration. It was not quite the “federalist” programme some, like myself,
hoped for – but it was a positive contribution and a useful starting point for
discussions on determining the precise shape of a post-referendum Scotland. Its
main strength was the recognition that the real issue is not simply one of “powers”,
but shaping the kind of Scotland the majority of us would like to live in.

The difficulty is that the Labour
and Conservative parties have shown no indication whatsoever of buying into the
Lib Dem vision. They recognise the need to accept the case for further
devolution, realising that not to do so would be tantamount to asking “No”
voters to support the status quo. They understand, purely from the perspective
of political expediency, the need to be perceived as pro-change. But they are
not co-travellers on the federalist train. Labour’s Devolution Commission
focused predominantly on tax-varying powers and, while there are some welcome
commitments to further devolution of welfare, the truth is that it is a very
bland document. It reads as though the Committee was determined to take the Fabian
mantra of “the inevitability of gradualism” to an illogical extreme. The Conservatives,
on the other hand, to their credit consider the benefits of reversing the drift
towards centralisation of power and focus on devolution within Scotland. The
Tories have produced a document that reads well from the perspective of the
committed devolutionist, but it is again too focused on the purely fiscal and
fails to advocate the kind of “radicalism” that should appeal to either Liberal
Democrats or others who desire a more comprehensive programme of reform.

Given the admittedly moderate
ambitions of the Labour and Conservative parties, what then does a promise for “more
powers” actually mean? What it does not mean is certainty. Even if, in the
event of a “No” vote, work will begin on the new legislation as soon as
September 19th, the final proposals will be far from certain until
publication some months later.

What the final proposals might
actually be cannot be known at this point, which is unlikely to provide any reassurances
to undecided voters. What can be said, with some degree of certainty, is that
the final recommendations are more likely to look like the Tory and Labour
proposals rather than the Liberal Democrat Home Rule recommendations, or Willie
Rennie’s vision for “full fiscal federalism”. Federalism is a non-starter.

What this announcement actually
confirms is that the pro-Union parties are truly terrified. Why make the
statement now, with just over way week until polling day? Why, if they were so
committed to “further powers”, was a timetable not established over a year ago to
confirm collective agreement to a process? The vague references to “powers” otherwise
provides nothing of substance. This is simply one more mistake committed by
Better Together: after refusing the option of a second question on the ballot
form, the parties should have been more pro-active in proposing a mechanism for
achieving change, rather than simply making vague gestures. If this
announcement had been made in different circumstances earlier in the campaign,
it may justifiably have been perceived as a genuine exercise in collaborative
working to facilitate reform. As it is, Gordon Brown’s Declaration of Loanhead
Miners’ Club looks like a calculated and cynical attempt to counter what now
appears to be the very real threat of independence with some familiar Labour
realpolitik. It inevitably feels like a bribe, even if it isn’t designed to be.

Better Together’s problem stems
from the fact that it did not feel the need to either make a case for the
union, or to spell out what its plans might be for devolution. Belatedly it is attempting
to offer some degree of certainty but, having remained virtually quiet for over
two years, why should anyone listen now? In any case, being asked to trust
Brown and Darling on delivering a better economy for Scotland is a little like
Vladimir Putin asking the world to trust him on human rights issues. It simply
isn’t credible.

As a Liberal Democrat, I would
naturally prefer a workable federalist settlement for the UK. If Better
Together had promised – or even suggested – the possibility for a UK
Constitutional Convention I may have been tempted to vote no. But no such
commitment to anything so far-reaching has ever been offered and I am not
persuaded by today’s statement, committed as it is to non-commitment.

The difficulty for many voters is
that, irrespective of the result of next week’s referendum, the only certainty
is more uncertainty. What independence will mean will inevitably be subject to
negotiation; what “further powers” means in practice will be determined by
discussions between the pro-union parties. It can be said with some regrettable
conviction, however, that they will bear almost no resemblance to the Home Rule
Commission’s bold vision.

The most likely outcome is that “further
powers” will mean whatever the Conservative and Labour parties want it to mean.
If that’s your vision for Scotland’s future, then vote “No”.

For all the
criticisms aimed at Alex Salmond and the SNP, it’s now the Better Together
parties who are short on answers. If only Better Together had been discussing "more powers" for the last two years, rather than the final two weeks.

Awards and reviews

Reviews of A Scottish Liberal

"Andrew is an excellent writer and analyst about a broad range of policy and philosophical topics. It is great to see him recognised as such across Scotland and throughout the UK. And he speaks Gaelic." Gavin Hamilton, A View from the Hills

"Every one of our MP's should read this. Best blog I have read this year." Gerry McGregor, Thoughts of a Caithness Loon

"Andrew has an easy style of writing and a moderate and thought-out approach to his subject. He is as likely to criticise his own party, as he is another. In short he thinks for himself, makes his arguments accordingly and is nobody's yes man." Tris, Munguin's Republic

"The blog by Andrew Page is well worth visiting. He seems to be a man that will not bow down to party dogma [unlike the Labour MPs and MSPs]. I respect a man who is willing to shelve his career to do what he thinks is right."Gedguy, My Frustrated Rants

Andrew Page - A Scottish Liberal

Andrew is a member of the Liberal Democrats, who feels politics is at its best when it empowers and is at its worst when it descends into tribal adversarialism.
Andrew is is the treasurer of the Lib Dem Mental Health Association. He is also a member of the Council for British Archaeology, the Liberal Democrat History Group, Lib Dems Against Trident, Lib Dems for a Republic and the Liberal Democrat Association of Trade Unionists.
Thoughts expressed on here are Andrew's own and occasionally may differ from those of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.